June 22, 2021 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 20
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Are the House Leaders ready?
S. CROCKER:
Yes, Sir.
SPEAKER:
Admit strangers.
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. This is the earliest possible
time to raise the point of privilege. It is my first opportunity to do so.
O'Brien and Bosc in the House of Commons
Procedure and Practice states that a “Member must satisfy the Speaker that
he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as
practicable after becoming aware of the situation.”
As
per our discussion, you agreed that this the earliest possible time. I have
given you notice and a copy of the point of privilege. This point of privilege
is being raised as there is new evidence from a Supreme Court decision in the
past few days, which is contrary to the findings of
The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018.
You
advised me that the point of privilege I raised in the last General Assembly
died on the Order Paper when the House of Assembly dissolved and that I would
have to file a new point of privilege, which I am doing so.
Due
to what I've mentioned above, there is also new evidence from the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador on a recent decision which has implications with
the findings of The Joyce Report of
October 18, 2018.
My
point of privilege is concerning The Joyce
Report of October 18, 2018, presented to the Management Commission by the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards and subsequently tabled in the House of
Assembly and voted on in this House of Assembly on November 6, 2018.
In
our Members' Parliamentary Guide, May 2019, Parliamentary privilege is defined
as “the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively … and by
Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their
functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.”
Privilege or peculiar rights can be divided into two
categories: Rights to the Members, individually and rights extended to the
House, collectively.
As Speaker Sauvé stated in a ruling on March 22, 1983:
An allegation of criminal or dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the
Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.
The
Joyce Report
of October 18, 2018, and the vote in this House of Assembly violated my rights
and affected my ability to carry out my duties effectively and damaged my
reputation. Bruce Chaulk – and I quote – “I think his attempts to influence the
Complainant's actions, as well as his response when she failed to affect his
desired outcome, were outside the “norm” of political interactions and were
below the standards expected of persons in their role within government.
Relationships between Members and government employees should be professional
and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of those
employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.
“I find that the conduct of MHA Joyce is a violation of
principle 10 of the Code of Conduct. His behaviour during the hiring process
fell below the standard expected of a member of the House of Assembly. I find
that the manner in which he addressed this issue was unprofessional and showed a
lack of mutual respect towards members of the public service by placing those
individuals in the middle of a process that is supposed to be politically
impartial. This type of conduct is not acceptable and must be discouraged.”
In The Joyce
Report of October 18, 2018, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards found
myself in violation of Principle 10, which states: “Relationships between
Members and government employees should be professional and based upon mutual
respect and should have regard to the duty of those employees to remain
politically impartial when carrying out their duties.” He classified the
complainant as a government employee, who was a Member of this Legislature which
is contrary to the act. This was intentional, malicious and an abuse of his
powers.
On November 5, 2018, when the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards was questioned in the House of Assembly, I questioned him
regarding Principle 10 and asked how I violated Principle 10 when the Speaker of
the House, Perry Trimper, stated in a letter November 2, 2018, to me that:
“Members of the House of Assembly are elected officials, they are not
employees.” There is no employee relationship between a Member and the Crown.
The Commissioner's reply was: “The only thing I would suggest is that
relationships between Members is certainly plural.”
This House of Assembly accepted this false report and
voted on it in the House of Assembly and damaged my reputation. It has to be
brought back to the House of Assembly for consideration.
There was a request by myself and former MHA Dale Kirby
to obtain a copy of the Rubin Thomlinson report, which found that there was no
bullying and harassment. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards refused us a
copy. Mr. Kirby appealed the decision to the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
During the investigation, less than three months after
The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018,
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards made a total contradictory statement
to the Privacy Commissioner pertaining to Principle 10. On page 3, paragraph 7
of the Privacy Commissioner's report it states: “… the Commissioner for the
Legislative Standards states that the Complainant is not an 'employee'….”
Paragraph 7 continues: “In support of this position, the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards provided this Office with an opinion from the Clerk of the
House of Assembly:
“MHAs are not
considered employees. They are public office holders.”
The Information and Privacy Commissioner in his report
on page 5 states: “While section 41 is a mandatory exception to disclosure,
section 33 creates a mandatory right of access in the context of a workplace
investigation. However, based on the definition of a 'workplace investigation'
at section 33(1)(c) the conduct at issue must be that of an 'employee'. The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards and the Clerk of the House of Assembly
deny that a Member of the House of Assembly is an 'employee'. The language of
the House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act supports the conclusion that a Member is
not an employee, with a distinction made between the two roles throughout that
Act, for example:
“55 (1) An
employee or a member who reasonably believes that he or she has information
that could show that a wrongdoing has been committed or is about to be committed
may make a disclosure to his or her supervisor, the clerk, a member of the audit
committee chosen under paragraph 23(2)(b), or the investigator.
“62. Where a
supervisor, the speaker, the clerk or the investigator is of the opinion that it
is necessary to further the purposes of this Part, he or she may, in accordance
with the rules, arrange for legal advice to be provided to employees and
members involved in a process or proceeding under this Part.
“[12] Furthermore, the definition of 'employee' found
in the ATIPPA, 2015 is clear that an
employee performs services 'for the public body.'
“2. In this Act
(i)
'employee', in relation to a public body, includes a person retained under a
contract to perform services for the public body.
In this case, the person is a member elected by his
constituents to represent them. He does not perform services 'for' a public
body. His relationship is to the electorate, who 'hired' him through their
electoral process, and they determine his tenure of employment.”
Donovan Molloy, Information and Privacy Commissioner,
ruled on page 6, paragraph 15: “Further, a Member of the House of Assembly is
not an 'employee' and, accordingly, section 33 of the
ATIPPA, 2015 does not apply to require that access be granted” as an
MHA.
Mr. Kirby appealed the decision through the Supreme
Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. The decision of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Justice Frances J. Knickle, page 32, paragraph 91: “The
appellant is not an employee as understood in the common law.”
The House of Assembly Law Clerk, in a letter dated July
11, 2019, makes it clear that MHAs are not government employees. In her letter
she states: An MHA is not a government employee.
In a submission to Justice Osborne on November 27,
2020, for an access to information review, the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards stated: Members are not government employees. Signed, Bruce Chaulk,
Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
The people to date who contradicted the Commissioner's
finding of October 18, 2018, on Principle 10, that Members are not government
employees are as follows: the Commissioner's own testimony to the Privacy
Commissioner; his letters to Justice Osborne; the Supreme Court appeal with the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards supported this decision of the Privacy
Commissioner; the Clerk of the House of Assembly; the Law Clerk of the House of
Assembly; the Privacy Commissioner, Donovan Molloy; Supreme Court Justice
Knickle; and former Speaker Perry Trimper.
I am tabling all the documents, if possible, as clear
evidence that contradicts the findings in
The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018.
Mr. Speaker, it's very disturbing that the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards presented a report to the Management Commissioner,
which by his own submissions, and many more, were false and this infringed upon
my right as a Member.
Mr. Speaker, the second point I produced that you
informed me of that died on the Order Paper and that I should resubmit is
interference by former Premier Dwight Ball, which questions the independence of
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
The Commissioner stated on many occasions that he was
an independent officer who completed the report without any interference.
Mr. Speaker, in
Hansard, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards stared on November 5,
2018 – I quote – “As a statutory officer, I have a solemn responsibility to
administer the law exactly the way specified in the law. In doing so, I am
expected to behave in a non-partisan manner.” I am expected to behave in a
non-partisan manner – that was his quote, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, these statements were absolutely false,
misleading and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards presented a report to
the House of Assembly that was not independent and have political interference
that resulted in the Commissioner for Legislative Standards misleading the House
of Assembly. On August 6, 2018, former Premier Dwight Ball informed me that
another report concerning former MHA Colin Holloway would be released on August
7, 2018.
We attended a funding announcement in the Harbour Main
District. That night on August 6, Mr. Ball called me and informed me that the
report would not be released, but reports about myself and former MHA Dale Kirby
would be released together in several weeks.
On August 23, at the beginning of the by-election for
Windsor Lake, when asked by reporters about the bullying and harassment report,
Mr. Ball stated and I quote: “There's no room for political interference in
those reports … I've not received any information from the commissioner, neither
have I went looking for any.”
Mr. Ball stated and I quote: “It's done with an
independent process that's been established by Chief Justice Green here.”
On November 5, 2018, in the House of Assembly in
Hansard, former Premier Ball stated:
“Somewhere along the line, of course, the processes had changed and Members made
a decision, which was certainly up to them and I certainly encourage and support
all of that, but Members took a different route to actually get the allegations
dealt with and investigated.
“So, that was my only involvement in all of this …”
Bruce Chaulk response “Yes, very much so.”
Mr. Speaker, Dwight
Ball and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards misled the House of Assembly
and there was political interference by Dwight Ball.
I was informed on
August 6, 2018, that both reports would be coming out together. Just over two
weeks later that occurred. One day after the by-election in Windsor Lake.
After writing
Dwight Ball on many occasions, which he refused to respond, if he was in contact
with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards during the process, I threatened
to release the names of those who were in contact with the Commissioner on his
behalf during the investigation. After public denials of no interference and in
the House of Assembly stating that he had not been in contact with the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, I received a letter from Dwight Ball on
May 31, 2019. I quote: “I can confirm there were limited occasions whereby my
office contacted the Office of the Commissioner
for
Legislative Standards.” I quote again, Mr. Speaker, from Dwight Ball, his own
signature: “I can confirm there were limited occasions whereby my office
contacted the Office of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.”
Dwight Ball and the Commissioner both denied any
involvement, and this was clearly misleading to the general public and to the
House of Assembly who voted on the reports against myself and Dale Kirby when
there was clearly political interference. Dwight Ball interfered with the
process and the independence of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards was
breached.
Mr. Speaker, I read from
Hansard, November 5, 2018, Mr. Lane: “… if you've said that there
was no bullying and harassment that has taken place, and therefore a breach of
the Code of Conduct, I can only assume that Rubin Thomlinson said the same
thing, there is no bullying and harassment.”
Mr. Chaulk: “Without getting into the report – without
getting into any of the reports and saying anything, but if someone goes through
the effort of hiring an investigator to investigate a particular situation, I
think the person would be a fool to overturn or dispute what the investigator is
telling them.”
Mr. Chaulk: “That's what those reports look like, and
that's what the report looked like when I received them from Rubin Thomlinson.
They looked exactly like that. Of course, I put a section in the front which
deals with the chronology and the legislative authority and my executive
summary; but, for the most part, you're reading the Rubin Thomlinson report,”
where there was no bullying and harassment.
What changed from the Rubin Thomlinson report of no
bullying and harassment to filing a false report on this? Political interference
by Premier Dwight Ball: I can confirm that there were limited occasions whereby
my office contacted the Commissioner for Legislative Standards on May 31, 2019,
signed by Dwight Ball. These interactions where never disclosed, but publicly
Dwight Ball and the Commissioner denied any contact with each other.
I would like to point out also that the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards is also the ethics Commissioner for this House of
Assembly. My reputation was damaged by this political interference, secret
discussions and the tabling of the false reports of October 18, 2018. Mr.
Speaker, this is clearly a prima facie case where a Member's reputation was
damaged and the quickest and speediest remedy to bring this back to the House of
Assembly so a debate can occur with all the information presented.
On March 22, 1983, Madam Sauvé, in a ruling, stated on
a point of privilege: While it is before the court “I have therefore decided, in
spite of the reservations I have expressed, that this complaint should be given
precedence as a prima facie case of privilege in order to provide the Hon.
Member with the speediest possible route toward the re-establishment of his
reputation. I am prepared to entertain a motion to refer this matter to the
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.”
Mr. Speaker, you have to decide if this is a prima
facie case. If my rights as a Member have been violated, you must bring it back
to the House for this House of Assembly to make their decision.
This ruling is precedence that does allow an issue
before the courts to get the speediest possible remedy to re-establish my
reputation, as Madam Sauvé stated. Any decision in this House is bound by
parliamentary privilege and it has no bearing on court decisions. Mr. Speaker,
if you make a decision that this is a prima facie case, I will bring a motion to
bring The Joyce Report of October 18,
2018 back to the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, Bosc and O'Brien states: “It is impossible
to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction,
interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute
prima facie cases of privilege.
However, some matters found to be prima
facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the
title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and
of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.”
I refer to page 141 in O'Brien and Bosc, where Members
include privileges before the House of Assembly are treated with the utmost
seriousness. As you outlined, there is a formal process to be followed, I
followed the process, notified the Speaker of my intentions to raise the point
of privilege at his earliest possible convenience.
Mr. Speaker, with the pleasure of the House and consent
of the House, I will table every document to prove everything I said here:
written correspondence by every person that I mentioned in this.
SPEAKER:
Are
there any other speakers to the point of privilege?
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not going to make any big, long commentary on this
but as someone who was here at the time, I have to be honest, when all this came
down – I wasn't there. Some of us could have been here, I'm not sure. I wasn't
here when any of this allegedly took place, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am
very concerned on a couple of matters.
One thing I am very concerned about is the fact that
our Commissioner for Legislative Standards would state in this House of
Assembly, which he did – we tried to ask him questions. He wouldn't answer
hardly anything, anyway. I can remember trying to ask him questions and you'd
get non-answers. It reminded me of Question Period.
I would say this, though, that he has stated on the one
hand in this House of Assembly as part of the charge against our colleague here
that it was because it was between government employees. He said that; that's
there. Then he goes ahead in a couple of court proceedings – one with the
Privacy Commissioner and another one involving former colleague Dale Kirby – and
indicates that they're not government employees.
So there's either an issue of competence or there's an
issue of misleading this House of Assembly. Regardless of the report, regardless
of what went on or didn't go on in terms of
The Joyce Report, The Kirby
Report, the fact of the matter is that if the Commissioner – who is an
independent Officer of this House, who reports to this House. Now we have
another instance. We've been going through all the issues that went on with the
last provincial general election and a lot of questionable decisions. And now
this comes to light. I think that this House needs to take that matter very,
very seriously. I ask you to do so when you're considering, Mr. Speaker.
Whether or not you go forward with a review of
The Joyce Report or not, whether that
happens or not, I think that the matter concerning potential misleading of the
House by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – on a standalone basis, if
nothing else – needs to be addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Any
further speakers?
If not, this House will recess to review the point of
privilege.
Recess
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I took some time to review the point of privilege;
however, I do need a little more time to review the full documents and I will be
making a ruling in very short order.
The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to, for the record of
Hansard and this House of Assembly,
indicate that I will be recusing myself from any deliberations, either in my
role as the Deputy Chair of Committees or as an MHA, as we work through this
matter, given I'm involved in an application with this gentleman before the
courts. I'll leave it there.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia St. Mary's
S.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also will be recusing myself from any deliberation on
the floor as it pertains to this matter, and I will stand by the October 18
report.
Thank you very much.
Statements by Members
SPEAKER:
Today we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Topsail -
Paradise, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, Placentia - St. Mary's, Humber - Bay of
Islands and Mount Pearl - Southlands.
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It appears summer has arrived, and many like-minded
individuals and groups from communities across the province have come together
to remove litter and work to keep our beautiful province clean.
May month was Community Clean-up Month for Topsail -
Paradise, and many groups and volunteers had taken the time out of their busy
lives to get outside and help the environment while cleaning up neighbourhoods,
school grounds, open spaces, trails and business locations.
Groups such as 1st Topsail Scouting and 1st Paradise
Scout Troop collected hundreds of pounds of garbage from Peter Barry Duff
Memorial Park. MUNHOPE collected five bags of garbage from Topsail Beach. And
the Town of CBS just recently held its 3-Hour Challenge this past weekend. Many
other groups and individuals of all ages have volunteered and participated in
community cleanups.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see such wonderful community
spirit from all groups and volunteers of all ages stepping forward to clean up
our beautiful neighbourhoods and communities. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank all of those who have participated.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
This past Friday marked the launch of a public
fundraising campaign for the Lionel Kelland Hospice in Grand Falls-Windsor.
Titled Every Moment Matters, this initiative will set out to raise the remaining
35 per cent of the estimated capital cost of $7.6 million to finally make this
dream become a reality.
The new design, unveiled Friday, will see 10
residential suites with private washrooms, along with accommodations for family
members to overnight. Other features include a children's play area, an outdoor
area beaming with nature and beauty and a place of spiritual reflection and
guidance for any and all faiths. The Lionel Kelland Hospice will offer quality
care for loved ones nearing their end of life journey and also offering support
to their families.
I ask all hon. Members to join me as we thank Board
Chair Mark Griffin and the other directors, the Presentation Sisters, the
community for their donations and support and special thank you to the Gift Team
chaired by Shelley Woolfrey. Remember, folks, Every Moment Matters.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
S.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Colinet, St. Mary's Bay is different from most
Newfoundland outports; it looked to the woods instead of the ocean for its
existence. The Colinet Loggers Heritage Society was formed in 2017 to research, preserve and make available the
historic and cultural heritage of Colinet.
The society
acquired the former Our Lady of Grace church and recommissioned it as the Fergus
& Fred Linehan Heritage Centre. The building has been developed into a splendid
cultural arts centre that has hosted many of Newfoundland's finest performers.
The Heritage Society continues to collect artifacts and pictures from the town's
past and is working to display them.
The Colinet
Logger's Car Show is a major supporter. It has developed the basement of the
building into a car storage space. Concerts and dances are held throughout the
year. The society gratefully receives sponsorship from local business and it
applies for all provincial and federal funding available.
Potential future
projects include developing the grounds into a park-like area suitable for
performances, exploring the possibility of a summer theatre, installing walking
trails with storyboards and welcoming visitors to Colinet.
I ask everyone to
join me in congratulating
the Colinet Loggers Heritage Society on their
success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
E.
JOYCE:
Today I'm pleased to recognize two individuals from my district who were
recently awarded Ronald McDonald House Helping HAND Awards.
Tammy Maillet of Meadows has been a valued member of
the McDonald's team in Corner Brook since 2013. She firmly believes in the
Ronald McDonald House Charities and doing her part to help make a difference for
the sick children and their families, especially families in Western
Newfoundland. Her commitment and dedication to the charities has been recognized
by her co-workers and this year Tammy is the recipient of the Champion
McDonald's Crew Helping HAND Award.
Cindy Wells of Irishtown has been a dedicated volunteer
for Ronald McDonald House and a Red Shoe Crew campaign leader since 2012. Cindy
has a personal connection to Ronald McDonald House and through her fundraising
initiatives and dedication, she has brought together her community every year in
support of the charity and has raised over $50,000 to date. In recognition of
her continued commitment, Cindy is the recipient of the Community Engagement
Volunteer Helping HAND Award.
I ask all Members to join with me in extending
congratulations to these two ladies and thank them for their continued
dedication to such a great cause.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
P.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House
to recognize several outstanding young people in my community. The Mount Pearl
31st Annual Focus on Youth Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the
great talent, athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very
amazing youth.
These individuals included: Mount Pearl Youth of the
Year, Liam Bavis; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Sara Parsons; Youth Athletes of
the Year, Megan Holden and Kalan Noonan; Youth Team of the Year, the O'Donel
High Senior Boys Volleyball Team; RNC Youth in Service Award winner, Sarah
Bertrand; S.T.E.M. Award winner, Russell Corbett; Performing Arts Recognition,
the cast and crew of O'Donel High School's
The Wedding Singer and The Valley;
Performing Arts Individual Award winners, Julia Bryant and Rebecca-Ann Bartlett;
Visual Arts Award winners, Jade Hickey and Jordan Dawe; and Literary Arts Award
winner, Jai-Lynn Francis.
These amazing young people have already accomplished so
much and have fostered a wonderful sense of pride and optimism for the future of
my community.
I ask all Members to join me in congratulating these
amazing young people on their accomplishments and wish them the very best in
their future endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm pleased to speak today about exciting initiatives
happening under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund, specifically the Climate
Change Challenge Fund.
Recently, I joined my federal colleague, the Minister
of Natural Resources, to announce $8.1 million in support for 13 climate action
projects in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The provincial government contributed $3.3 million in
support of these initiatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions, improve fuel
efficiency and help communities across the province save on energy costs.
Some of the initiatives include the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing Corporation's Furnace Replacement Project for existing housing
units around the province and the Fisheries and Marine Institute's Fuel
Switching Project. Details on the remaining projects will be announced in the
coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, every single action we take to lower
greenhouse gas emissions matters.
By 2030, programs under this fund are anticipated to
deliver 830,000 tons of cumulative greenhouse gas reductions and 650 direct
person-years of employment. In addition to the projects under the Climate Change
Challenge Fund, the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund supports programs for
residential, provincial and industrial energy efficiency and electrification,
including converting buildings such as schools from oil heat to electric heat.
Through programs like the Low Carbon Economy Leadership
Fund, and our Climate Change Action Plan, we are working to not only reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, but to stimulate clean innovation and growth, and
build resilience to climate change impacts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
P.
FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement.
I join the minister in recognizing the initiatives that
fall under the Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund here in this province. The
world is changing, and due to the threat of climate change, collectively, we
must change.
In recognition of this, any reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions in this province are welcome news. These emission reductions are
important steps in the right direction, but we need to do more to combat climate
change.
We look forward to hearing more steps in this direction
as we try to meet our Paris climate change targets.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement, and agree that every single action we take to lower greenhouse gas
matters.
True environmental stewardship requires concrete
action. While transitioning homes from fossil fuels is a good initiative, we
will need an effective rate mitigation plan if this program is to meet its true
potential, after all, why would homeowners switch to electricity without knowing
the costs they will be facing.
We also call on government today to take true steps
towards better environmental stewardship, declare a climate emergency, introduce
a just transition plan from fossil fuels and establish a climate change task
force.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth
and Skills.
G.
BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we grow our province's population by
attracting and retaining newcomers to live, to work and to feel a sense of
belonging in our communities all while ensuring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
have the skills and supports they need to live and work here.
Population growth is essential to our province, Mr.
Speaker. We're all especially heartened by the strong endorsement of our mandate
by Members of the Official Opposition and the Third Party during our budget
Estimates.
Budget 2021
has
us positioned to welcome 5,100 newcomers a year by 2026, with over $3 million
available to help match employers with newcomers to address emerging gaps in our
labour market and support population growth. While we work to welcome people
here in record numbers we will also ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have
the skills and supports they need with funding for training, apprenticeships,
youth employment and career development.
Mr. Speaker, we launched the innovative Priority Skills
immigration program in response to a growing demand for highly educated, highly
skilled workers in our province. This program seeks newcomers with specialized
education and experience in areas such as technology, ocean sciences and health,
where demand has outpaced local training and recruitment. Since the Priority
Skills launch in January, we have received some 12,000 submissions from
experienced professionals, including Memorial University of Newfoundland and
Labrador graduates.
I'm pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that the
health sector has reviewed more than 2,000 applications and has identified 385
people to date who will be invited to apply for permanent residency in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
At this moment, our staff is working with these
potential newcomers to get them on the path to become a part of Newfoundland and
Labrador's family.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to providing further
updates on more job-matching success stories as we continue to review Priority
Skills applications for other in-demand sectors, such as technology and
aquaculture, and welcoming more newcomers to their new home, Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
C.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy
of his statement today.
Mr. Speaker, I join the minister in acknowledging the
Priority Skills immigration program, which aims to attract newcomers to our
province with specialized education and experience in areas such as technology,
ocean sciences and health, where demand has outpaced local training and
recruitment.
Newfoundland and Labrador has a tremendous bounty to
offer newcomers to our province: fresh air, clean water, rugged coastlines and
some of the friendliest people on the planet. We have been truly blessed, Mr.
Speaker; however, our province is the oldest per capita and has among the lowest
birth rates in this country. Quite simply, we desperately need newcomers to our
province to help bridge this gap. The PC Official Opposition looks forward to
hearing more details and, ultimately, the results of this initiative and others
like it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement and commend him on the Priority Skills pathway for newcomers. For
years, the government has been boasting about their attempts to increase
immigration and retention. Over time, Memorial University and the CNA have done
a tremendous job of attracting talented people and encouraging them to make this
province their home. Yet the key problem is that government struggles to retain
these individuals.
We call on the government today to cancel its planned
cuts to education. Let our strong academic institutions continue to do what this
government fails to do. Meanwhile, we also ask government to focus its efforts
on creating a credible plan to retain those who are already coming to this
province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Are
there any further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical
Association says that the minister's comment that we are blessed with the amount
of doctors and nurses working in our province doesn't tell the full story. The
association says 90,000 people are without a family doctor in our province,
which could get worse as doctors age and retire.
I ask the Premier: Do you agree with the Health
Minister's assessment?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Member opposite for that important
question.
As we are all aware, the demographics across this
province are changing significantly, as is the training of medical
professionals. We understand that the changes need to meet the demands of the
communities. This is a complex issue that is not just simply a numeric one or a
ratio.
To answer the question, Mr. Speaker, we are cognizant
of it and we're willing to work with all members of the medical communities –
doctors, nurses, advanced care paramedics, nurse practitioners: everybody – to
come to a solution for the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That's one of the reasons that we put in place the Health Accord. We look
forward to hearing their recommendations on how we look at a different vision of
health care that hasn't changed, really, since the '60s, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Medical Association's review says that we need 60
new physicians immediately and an additional 10 per year for the next decade.
I ask the Premier: Will the province meet these
targets?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, I can certainly tell you that we're very lucky to have a medical school
here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It does an incredible job in providing
doctors – and premiers – to the province. We will continue to ensure that is
developing and providing the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's done an incredible job since the '70s and it continues to meet the needs of
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The reality is that the needs are, however, changing as
the demographics change. We need to make sure that they're being trained
appropriately in a team atmosphere so that the millennials, who are now
physicians, are getting the work-life balance that they require. That's what
will ultimately keep physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and we, on this side of the House, also see the value
and the professionalism of our medical school.
The president of the Medical Association has said: “We
have to have a human resources plan. We have to plan out where do we need
physicians, how many do we need and where should they be working.”
I ask the Premier: When will a human resources plan be
completed? Will he table it in this hon. House?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The issue around access for primary care, particularly,
is really important and very topical at the moment. It's probably one of two
comments I get in my inbox. The Health Accord really is going to redesign the
way primary care is delivered through collaborative teams. Until that
recommendation comes out, the health resource plan that everyone talks about
needs to be considered in that light.
We have our challenges with recruitment and retention
and we're rising to meet those. We held a day recently, Dean Steele, to sound
out what it would be that would help retain our excellent graduates, Mr.
Speaker. We'll continue to work on that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Medical Association has stated that we have the
worst retention rate of any medical school in the country. Doctors and nurses
that are trained here do not stay here. Meanwhile, the Greene report recommends
cutting the number of nursing schools in our province from three to one.
I ask the Premier: How do cutting nursing schools help
retain health care professionals?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.
I think it's an important point of clarity. I believe
what was insinuated in the Greene report was to amalgamate the administration of
those three nursing schools, Mr. Speaker. We understand the importance of
nursing schools across the province so that they provide and return to the
communities where they develop.
We're continuing to commit to that, but we need to make
sure that we're offering it in an efficient way, including the streamlining of
corporate services and administrative costs. Surely, it doesn't make sense to
have three back ends when we need a fully serviced front end, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That needs to be clarified because the need for nurses
and nursing schools in Newfoundland and Labrador in different regions is very
important to the people of this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
D.
BRAZIL:
Last week, the minister stated that there are chronic issues around recruitment
for nurses in our province. This government has been in place for almost six
years and the chronic issue of recruitment is causing burnout with our current
nursing staff.
I ask the Premier: When will chronic issues around
recruitment finally be resolved?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER A. FUREY:
Mr.
Speaker, these issues unfortunately are not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador.
We're working hard to try to come up with unique, creative models and, in fact,
had a great meeting with the president of the Nurses' Union to that effect, in
which we suggested – and she suggested, frankly – different models to provide
care to remote and rural communities that would allow nurses to exercise their
full capacity as nurses, to meet their full training requirements and to
flourish in their professional capacity.
That will involve thinking outside the box, Mr.
Speaker. The traditional way of providing health care to all communities across
the province – it doesn't matter if it's urban or rural – has changed. It's
acutely changed with respect to the pandemic. We need to make sure that we're
providing all the supports for those nurses, especially, however, in rural
communities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
D.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that thousands of medical procedures have
been backlogged because of COVID, yet the Premier's Greene report says that
health care should be cut by 25 per cent over the next six years. We have a
doctor and nurse shortage, 90,000 people without a family doctor and an aging
population that will require more and more care.
I ask the Premier: How can a 25 per cent cut to health
care spending improve these difficult numbers?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The recommendations for discussion in the Greene report
are just that, Mr. Speaker. They have gone out for consultation. What the Health
Accord is clearly mandated to look at is the concept of doing things more
efficiently, more patient focused and allowing the savings that are generated as
a result of that – the Premier has referenced back office functions, for example
– to be plowed back into broader social determinants of health, which actually,
over a person's life, have far more impact than any particular health care
provider can do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad to hear that the Greene report may just be
suggestions and not recommendations, because I can tell you from this side of
the House, those of us that represent rural districts, and those of you on the
other side that represent rural districts, when it talks about things like 25
per cent cut in health care or anything else, the report shouldn't have stopped
at big reset. It probably should've been called the big resettlement. So I'm a
little worried about that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, effective July 1, 2.21 cents per litre – or 2.5 cents per litre if you
include HST – will be added to our gas prices as a result of carbon tax
increases.
I ask the minister: How much additional revenue will
this generate?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An important question: The carbon tax revenue forecast
for '21-'22 is $113 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, carbon taxes are a gas tax, and higher taxes mean higher transportation
costs, meaning higher costs for consumers and businesses.
I ask the minister: What is being done to protect the
everyday consumer from these ever-increasing fuel prices?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member opposite is aware, this is the federal
carbon tax that is put on because of climate change. It's a very big concern for
our country and for the globe – climate change is. The idea of the carbon tax
was to help lower the amount of carbon being emitted into our atmosphere. A lot
of the money that I've just spoken about that's being gleaned from the carbon
tax is going towards programs to get us to net zero by 2050.
What we want to have, Mr. Speaker, is a cleaner
environment. We want to ensure that climate change is addressed in our lifetime.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, this isn't the first year for a carbon tax increase. This is actually
the third. In previous years, the carbon tax increase was offset by a reduction
in our gas taxes.
I ask the minister: How come we didn't reduce the gas
tax by the same amount this year to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
and keep them whole?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The question, I think, is an important one in that
carbon tax will continue to increase. This is a federal government initiative to
address climate change.
There is a gas tax that is administered by the
provincial government. We have done a scan across the country. Previously, we
were a little high on our gas tax, Mr. Speaker. We are now middle of the road
with regard to the imposition of gas tax. In fact, we are really in the middle
of the pack across the country; therefore, there was no room for us to move
lower. We were very competitive in our gas tax and we felt that was where we
needed to be.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, the reality of it is this budget, again, is focused on revenue
generation. This new carbon tax increase will generate, as the minister just
said, another $130 million in revenue to the province, at the same time having a
negative impact on the people of the province.
I would ask the minister, again: On the issue of job
creation, you had mentioned there were no mass layoffs. Is there going to be any
job losses as a result of actions taken in this year's budget?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you very much.
Let me correct the Member opposite in an erroneous
statement he just made, Mr. Speaker. He indicated that the carbon tax was going
to be an increase of $113 million. It is not, that is what the total revenue is
going to be for carbon tax this year.
With regard to the question, Mr. Speaker, I can say it
is not the goal of this government, we do not think it is a wise thing to do to
have mass layoffs at all. That is not our goal, as I have said consistently in
the House. Actually, government is actually actively recruiting for 500 people
at current, Mr. Speaker. So, no, I can say to the Member opposite: It is not the
goal of this government to have mass layoffs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, I have to go back and correct the minister again because obviously she
never heard my question when she answered with $130 million. I asked what
additional revenue would be collected by the province from the carbon tax
increase so it's not $113 million, if that's the total amount. I was referring
to the 2.5 cents that will be added this year.
How much does that actually increase revenue by?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to do math really quickly on the top of my
head and say approximately $60 million.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
T.
WAKEHAM:
No,
I'm done.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have had many calls and emails over the last little
while, especially the weekend, as I'm sure many have, from constituents and
we've seen it on social media and on radio call-in shows about the confusion the
changing of the vaccination schedule has caused. We're hearing of people who
were able to book their second dose but now the appointments are further away
than their first appointment.
I ask the minister: What is being done to stop this
confusion and ensure that second doses are scheduled sooner rather than later.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Excellent question, Mr. Speaker.
The RHAs are in the process of adding additional
clinics as we speak, we are expecting an additional 150,000 doses of Moderna
vaccine this week alone and into the beginning of next. We will see that amount
continue over the course of the summer. Whereas, before, it used to be Pfizer we
could rely on, now there is a prevalence or predominance of Moderna.
It's great to see the enthusiasm for second doses. I
would encourage people to keep an eye on their local health authority websites
as new clinics are literally being added by the hour.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
It's not really encouraging to hear that in matters of health, you're planning
as you go. This probably should have been all in place before the announcement
was made.
But speaking of the supply of Moderna, which is coming,
we welcome that. We understand there are little to no appointments available for
the Pfizer vaccine. The Pfizer vaccine is the only vaccine currently approved
for use with youth 12 to 18. This means young people face an extra barrier to
getting protection from COVID-19.
I ask the minister: What are our children supposed to
do?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
I'm
really glad the Member opposite asked that question, Mr. Speaker. It gives me an
opportunity to highlight the fact that, as of tomorrow, clinics will simply be
advertised as MRNA clinics. Each of the regional health authorities will inspect
the appointments for the following day and make sure that anybody under the age
of 16 who has an appointment will have a Pfizer dose waiting for them when they
turn up.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
P.
DINN:
That's good to know but the youth that we're talking about are 12 to 18. Those
over 16 are going to still have the same issue.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier's Greene report said “The
Provincial Government should: Institute a moratorium on building new long term
care facilities ….” In March 2020, there were 310 people waiting for long-term
placement.
Will there be a freeze on adding more long-term beds in
this province?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
J.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Moderna is actually licensed down to the age of 16. The
difference is 12 to 15, Mr. Speaker. That's Pfizer only, currently.
Having corrected that, in terms of long-term care, our
aim is aging at home, aging in place and we have had significant success over
the last year and half now, nearly two, in repatriating seniors from long-term
care back into the community. The first time this has ever happened. I'm pleased
to say Central Health led the way.
We will continue to assess the number of long-term care
beds from a residential point of view as we go. If we need more, we'll get more.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of Suncor said there
will be a lot of work done in Bull Arm on the Terra Nova.
Can the minister outline the value of the work? How
many jobs will be created at the Bull Arm site?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, the local vice-president did say there would be
work done at Bull Arm but I believe later on said that the scope of work is
still something that's being identified. I'm not sure actually what that number
would be. We do know that there will be some work done out there, and we do
realize that the refit will happen in Spain as previously planned as well.
The big thing that we were concerned about was that any
money from Newfoundland and Labrador that went in had to be spent in
Newfoundland and Labrador and on Newfoundland and Labrador workers, so we
continue to work on the details. We know we're still waiting to see the deal get
struck within the next number of weeks and we'll hopefully be able to report
more to this House as soon a possible.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
I'm
glad to hear the minister say that they're pushing to get the work done by
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I urge him to continue that push.
Bull Arm was the home of Hibernia, Hebron and now it
will be home to upgrades on the Terra Nova, once again proving its worth as a
world-class facility in the oil and gas industry.
I ask the minister: Does he agree with the Premier's
Greene report and its recommendations to sell off the Bull Arm site?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's certainly no doubt as to the value of Bull Arm
to this province and we've seen a lot of work done there in the past and
hopefully we're going to see some work there in the future, whether it's with
the Terra Nova FPSO or hopefully future work as it relates to a lot of the
potential projects that we have here in this province.
What I would say about the Greene report is that it's
recommendations. The big thing that I've noticed in this portfolio, whether it's
the divestiture of assets, whether it's Bull Arm or whether it's our stake in
projects, is that we need to explore everything. We have a number of
investments; is it the time to monetize them or not monetize them? We haven't
had that assessment done, but anything that belongs to the people of this
province we'll make sure that we protect it in the best interests of the people
of the province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the department is doing an analysis on the
Premier's Greene report recommendations.
Will the minister commit to releasing this analysis
once it is complete?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think what we've shown over the last number of
months, certainly since I've been in this role, is that I think it's incumbent
on us to release what we can to the people of this province, where available.
What we've also seen here as well is that we will not disclose anything that
would be not just commercially sensitive but places us in a difficult position
as it relates to negotiations.
I mean, we want to get information out there, but not
to the detriment of the people that we're actively working for. So while I can't
say I have any issue with releasing information, of course we want to put it out
there for people, what I will say is the only caveat would be putting out
anything that would hurt us as a province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, we've missed the boat on opportunity with Bull Arm with regard to a
long-term plan.
I'd like to ask the minister: What exactly is the plan
for the future of Bull Arm and how will we continue to create jobs out there for
decades to come?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with the assessment that we've missed the
opportunity. I think that the province has done what we can during trying times.
Right now it's being managed by OilCo and we know that there is a lease,
extending up into next year, with DF Barnes. There's work that's happening in
there, but not to the extent that anyone would like to see. It's not because
opportunities are missed; it's just the opportunities in many cases just have
not been there.
What I will say is that I do see optimism; I do see
potential. In fact, I've had people reach out to me over the last number of
months to talk about ideas for Bull Arm. We're open to absolutely anything, but
we are keeping an eye on, right now, the work for the Terra Nova happening in
Bull Arm.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
I
would think some of those people reaching out with ideas are the same people
that reached out in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Mr. Speaker, the Come By Chance oil refinery shut down
last year. Consumers are paying an extra five cents per litre on gasoline. It
remains shut down and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are still paying through
the nose for gasoline.
I ask the minister: Why haven't you asked the PUB to
review the gas prices?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll take the first one on this, although I do believe
the Minister of Service NL will get an opportunity as well, given that the PUB
actually falls under her mandate.
What I can say is that, yes, there has been a request
by a company, but usually we do not interfere with quasi-judicial bodies as it
relates to their work. Anybody is free to make the application. We have the
Consumer Advocate, an independent office, in place to advocate on behalf of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Right now, the information is not there. While we have
spoken to the PUB, if you touch this, then we're basically concerning ourselves
with a number of things where it becomes a very slippery slope down the road.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
L.
PARROTT:
Regardless of whose department it is, Mr. Speaker, when people go to the pumps,
they pay carbon tax, harmonized sales tax, excise tax and, to make things worse,
tax is paid on tax.
Why hasn't the minister stepped in and mandated that
the PUB find a solution to high gasoline prices which are negatively impacting
families in this province?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Petroleum
Products Act outlines the role of the Public Utilities Board, which is an
extremely important, independent role, and they monitor gas prices. They monitor
fuel price and supply, as well as review the marketplace changes. They would be
the body that I would encourage any residents or constituents to reach out to in
regard to concerns around gas prices.
Thank very much, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know this year's tourism season is going to be
critical for the future of our province and that staycations are an important
part of the plan. An inflated price of gas will keep people from travelling
across the province.
I ask the minister: Why are we hindering our tourism
industry by keeping gas prices so high?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't think the Member understands how this process
works. Government is not making the price high. That's absolutely not how this
works. God bless him; I wish George Murphy was around because there's nobody
that could explain this process better than George, rest in peace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
A.
PARSONS:
But
this is a good segue, perhaps, to talk about tourism. I know my colleague in
front would love to have an opportunity. I can say that this budget, we're
seeing about $30 million invested in tourism across the province through a very
simple, easy-to-use process. In fact, the reviews that we got last year from
this industry were absolutely positive. In fact, we've taken that, we've doubled
down and we're doing more.
Just listen to the comments from operators that have
reached out to us, and Brenda O'Reilly talking about the minister, I think we've
done a pretty good job helping tourism in this province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
C.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was only last week I was asking the question why $12
million of that $30 million went unspent when we lost 10.8 per cent of our
businesses in the tourism industry. We do have control of taxation on gas. I'm
fully aware that we can't control the price of gas, but the amount of taxation
that we have on gas can certainly incentivize travel if we reduce it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
C.
PARDY:
We're excited to see the airline industry slowly returning routes into our
province, but with the reopening around the corner we need more capacity to
maximize this year's critical tourism season.
The minister stated in Question Period previously that
HNL has a plan and it now rests with government to increase the number of daily
flights in and out of the province.
Is government fully endorsing this plan, and why hasn't
it occurred yet?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We've had great conversations with HNL and our airport
partners with this. We're continuing to have conversations with airlines. I have
a meeting tomorrow with PAL to also bring these conversations further. We're
seeing the movement from Air Canada and WestJet and PAL. PAL is now expanding as
far as Ottawa. It's great to see.
We're going to work with the airlines and make sure
that we're getting the necessary routes back in place as quickly as possible,
Mr. Speaker. As you would've seen or heard in the budget when the Minister of
Finance delivered said budget, there is a commitment to air access in that
budget.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, funeral homes in the metro St. John's area
are owed well over $200,000 by the provincial government for funeral services
for recipients of income support. Funeral homes have attempted to resolve this
issue since 2016 without success, forcing them to change the way they provide
services. I've heard that this has become such an issue that a long-term storage
cooling truck has been placed at the Health Sciences Centre to handle the
remains of loved ones.
I ask the Premier why the Liberal government has
allowed this to continue for five years while grieving families are caught in
the middle at a time when they need comfort, and the deceased be treated with
dignity and respect. More importantly, what action is being planned to address
this issue?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills.
G.
BYRNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for the question.
This is something which is a reflection of myself. I
was approached when I was minister responsible for Income Support by members of
the profession to help them provide supports for those families that could not
afford to provide funeral services for their family members.
One of the things that we did at that point in time –
this was some time ago, Mr. Speaker; you may learn this through conversations
with the funeral directors – is that we authorized an expedited program whereby
information can be provided to funeral home directors as to exact costs that the
income support program would provide. Annually, we provide over $1 million to
families in Newfoundland and Labrador that cannot afford funeral services for
their loved ones, whether they be on income support or otherwise. Mr. Speaker,
that program is very effective.
SPEAKER:
The
Member's time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest to the minister that the program is
failing and that government is basically allowing funeral homes to do the work
it's supposed to be doing.
Last week in this House I presented the climate
emergency declaration petition signed by some 590 people, and more are coming.
I ask the Premier: Will his government, as called for
in the petition, declare a climate emergency and establish a task force on
decreasing the effects of the climate change crisis?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
B.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question and
bringing up issues with respect to climate change and making it a front-of-mind
issue, as it should be for each and every one of us.
As I said in the petitions numerous times last week, we
have set a course to work with our plan that we have in place with respect to 43
of the 45 recommendations in process or completed. That plan, it is a five-year
plan. We are only partway through that plan. It is going to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, stimulate clean innovation and growth in the economy. It's an
opportunity for us to work with many partners, with the federal government,
municipalities and communities all across our province to reach the goals we
want to by 2050.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
While there has been substantial progress in providing
mental health support in recent years, the financial hurdle for long-term
counselling remains.
Could this government update the Legislature as to
steps to make it count – i.e., that important counselling – as a medical expense
for those that can pay privately and/or cover it entirely for those who require
extended assistance but cannot afford to participate, such as under the MCP?
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, our province cannot afford to not
provide this help.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
S.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member opposite and the people of the province
are aware, mental health services are provided under MCP and, lots of times,
through additional private services as well.
Mr. Speaker, there is a non-refundable tax credit to
the lesser of $23,097 or 3 per cent, I believe, of net income for those that
qualify or for those that need it. This is for costs associated with therapy for
someone with a physical or a mental impairment, including services, for example,
provided by a psychologist. This is a non-refundable tax credit offered through
the federal. I believe the Member opposite may be aware of that.
I think the question is whether or not we could add
additional supports to that. That is something we'll take under advisement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you, and I thank the minister for that.
I do hope we can make progress.
My second question, Mr. Speaker: I've been asking
questions and reading petitions as to the needed repairs on Route 520 throughout
this session of the Legislature. While there have been strong statements to
address this highway under the current Premier going back to last year, the
people of Sheshatshiu and North West River still have no update on this critical
situation.
Seeing as we are now in the summer season, when will
the tender be issued for repairs on Route 520?
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
E.
LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for the question.
On Route 520 there have been repairs that have started,
as he's aware of, on the Goose River Bridge, which is important, on Route 520. I
will say to the Member that I'm certainly committed to work with him in terms of
discussing the necessary work that's required on Route 520.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In accordance with section 56 of the
Automobile Insurance Act,
I'm pleased to submit the 2020-2021
Annual Report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on Operations
Carried Out under the Automobile
Insurance Act.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr.
Speaker, in response to recommendation 33 of the Office of the Child and Youth
Advocate's report A Long Wait for Change:
Independent Review of Child Protection Services to Inuit Children in
Newfoundland and Labrador, 2019, I'm pleased to table the
Report on Child Welfare Services to
Indigenous Children, Youth and Families, 2019-20.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
Any
other tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
T.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The maintenance and upkeep of the roadway through the
community Cold Brook is the responsibility of the Department of Transportation
and Infrastructure. Sections of the roadway have been in deplorable condition
for the last five years and need repair and resurfacing. Children are required
to ride school buses twice daily over roadways where sections of the paved road
are actually missing. There have been a number of close calls where vehicles
have to swerve in order to avoid driving over a section of that roadway. The
residents of Cold Brook deserve better.
We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing,
upgrading and maintaining the paved road through the community of Cold Brook in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I've presented this petition on at least
one other occasion in the House and, actually, to three different ministers now.
I'm third time lucky or third time charming; I'm not sure which it is. It is an
issue that – and I'm beginning to learn more and more about it. Apparently, the
road to Cold Brook was actually started to be paved some years ago. We ran into
one of those unfortunate situations where a hurricane came our way and some of
the funds that were allocated for the refinishing of that section of road had to
be diverted to some bridge repairs in the district as it was back then.
In actual fact, when you drive into Cold Brook, the
first section of road, you can see, has been resurfaced, but it's the last
kilometre that never got resurfaced. It has continued to deteriorate. I am
hoping that with the season started and a kilometre of pavement to be done, that
as the paving machines roll out to the West Coast and contracts are let, this
particular road can be finished once and for all.
I look forward to hearing from the minister.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for a response.
E.
LOVELESS:
Mr.
Speaker, thank you very much.
Yes, I have heard the Member mention this road over and
over and over, no doubt. Today I can tell him I'm not going to say yes and I'm
not going to say no. I'm looking at ways to see if I can get it done for the
Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I present my petition today and the background is as
follows:
WHEREAS there are no current long-term operations at
the Bull Arm Fabrication site;
WHEREAS it's a world-class facility with the potential
to rejuvenate the local economy and the provincial economy;
WHEREAS residents are troubled with the lack of local
employment in today's economy;
We would like the facility to encourage employment for
the area and create the economic spinoffs for local businesses. This is an asset
of the province. I don't think that the recommendation to sell it off,
obviously, is to the benefit of our province because I think a more long-term
tenant, Mr. Speaker, would be more attractive for gainful business
opportunities.
WHEREAS the continued idling and not being up to the
full potential are not in the best interests of the province;
THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull
Arm Fabrication site, petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to expedite the process to get Bull Arm Fabrication
site back in operation. We request that this process include a vision for a
long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I want to say that it's nice to see that the minister
is here to hear my petition. I really do appreciate that. We're here to work
together with the government for a long-term benefit to this great asset. The
petition I present today is signed by people in Sunnyside this time, Mr.
Speaker, and one of those is actually the mayor of Sunnyside, Mayor Gerald
Snook. Like I said, it's very important to this area because the spinoffs are so
great.
I'm going to stop there and just ask the minister, I
guess: Are we exploring all potential operators to take over the Bull Arm site?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for a response.
A.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the petition from the Member and his
constituents.
I wish I had more to report, but the reality is we do
not at this time.
The one thing to remember, though, just a couple of
principles, I guess, that sort of guide certainly me but I think all the Members
of this side are that, (a), we have recognition of the fact that we have a
tremendous asset there and that we are very lucky to have that. The second part
is that I am not compelled by a Greene report or anything to do one thing or the
other. It's nice though to have input, the same way that we have this report.
Again, there's a lot of work that went into it. But no different than I speak to
local mayors, no different than you speak to advocacy groups. All that forms a
basis of information for the department to take to try to figure out what is the
best step.
While I am certainly not opposed to examining to see if
it can be divested for a good reason, at the same time, I certainly wouldn't
want to see anything happen for the sake of doing the same.
Right now we do know that DF Barnes is there, as I
said, but we also know that it is underutilized. There's no doubt that we don't
have as much out there. But if you had asked me six months ago, maybe I would
have been a little more pessimistic. With the way things have gone recently, I'm
certainly seeing a lot more optimism and I think hopefully we'll see more going
on in that area.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's hard competing with these bunch here.
I'm presenting a petition for gender-affirming
surgeries, Mr. Speaker.
In November of 2019, the province announced that
transgender persons would be able to access chest surgeries through the
provincial MCP system;
The province quietly imposed punitive and restrictive
regulations for trans women. Trans women must be taking hormone replacement
drugs for 18 months; the world standard is 12. These women must have no breast
development at all. The world standard on transgender health care states that
“The medical procedures attendant to gender affirming/confirming surgeries are
not 'cosmetic' or 'elective' or 'for the mere convenience of the patient.' These
reconstructive procedures are not optional in any meaningful sense, but are
understood to be medically necessary for the treatment of the diagnosed
condition”;
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call for the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: Remove the
restrictive and punitive regulations regarding breast augmentation for
transgender women; and to allow medical decisions regarding transgender health
care to be decided by the patient and their doctor or medical team.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a petition signed by some 200
people. This is the second time I presented a petition on this. Considering,
when we look at it, we are at end of Pride Month. We've passed legislation here
regarding birth certificates and the ability to not have your gender identified.
We look at the incidents in Mount Pearl with the burning or the theft of the
Pride flags, I think it's important that as a government we're sending a clear
message that people who undergo these surgeries are given the full benefit so
that they can live the lives that they wish to live and to be identified in the
way that they wish to be identified.
I do call upon the minister, again, to remove the
restrictive and punitive regulations and to allow any such decisions to be
decided by the patient, Mr. Speaker, and their doctor or medical team.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The background to this petition is as follows: The
Public Utilities Board has approved a licence for an ambulance owner to operate
in the area from Bay Bulls to Bauline. This area is one of the fastest growing
areas of the province; there have been many concerns from residents,
municipalities, councils and emergency responders regarding response times.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the position of this service
provider and ensure that residents of Ferryland District meet national standards
for response times.
Mr. Speaker, I presented this petition on a couple of
other occasions, I would think, and it's a growing concern in our area. Between
Bay Bulls to Bauline there are roughly about 5,000 residents and right now
residents have to wait, I'm going to say, 45 minutes for an ambulance and that's
on a good day. We have incidents where constituents have to wait upwards of two
hours. Sometimes that happens and it happens way too often and it's something
that we should definitely look at.
There's an operator willing and able to step forward
and operate this service, and I ask the government again: What is the hold up on
it? We have two ambulances that are based in Cape Broyle that typically only
have enough for one crew and so the ambulance is sitting there in the yard. It's
just not something that's acceptable. If they go on an alert and an ambulance
from Cape Broyle could possibly respond in the area of Bay Bulls and they might
get a call to go to Trepassey, their ambulance is gone out so they could go to
Trepassey and that means we have a longer wait time coming from St. John's. If
they happen to be in a red alert, where do we stand then? So it's just something
that I bring to the minister and hopefully consider and have a look at.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Labrador has a rate of sexual assault of nearly four
times the national average according to the RCMP and the RNC. While this region
only makes up five per cent of the province's total population, Labrador has 25
per cent of the police-reported sexual assaults. In 2020, Statistics Canada
reported that there were some 449 police-reported sexual assaults on average for
every 100,000 people in Canada, while in Labrador we had about 681.
Many of the sexual assault survivors are Innu or Inuit,
living in communities where support services are lacking. It is crucial that the
victims of sexual assault receive proper care, as to not be further traumatized.
It is also important for the people administering the care to be culturally
aware and to have the proper education in these matters. The nearest
professionally trained support is based in St. John's.
THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to establish a
sexual assault nurse examiner in Labrador that can support survivors and provide
awareness/education regarding these terrible crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I have reported this petition before, and
I'm very pleased to say and I thank the minister for her co-operation and her
own initiative and enthusiasm. I understand that the department is looking to
move not just a single person, but, in fact, to have many persons trained in
these procedures across Labrador to provide that counselling, provide that
support. I thank her very much for that and I just encourage her to move as
quickly as possible for what is a very serious matter affecting Labrador and my
district.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I brought this petition a few times now. This is the
last one for this sitting here now. It's 160 signatures. It's a petition to
increase the support for Labrador West seniors.
The reason for the petition: The need for senior
accessible housing and home-care services in Labrador West is steadily
increasing. Lifelong residents of the region are facing the possibility of
needing to leave their home in order to afford to live or receive adequate care.
Additional housing options, including assisted-living care facilities, like
those found throughout the rest of the province, for seniors have become a
requirement for Labrador West. That requirement is not currently being met.
WHEREAS the seniors of our province are entitled to
peace and comfort in their own homes where they have spent a lifetime
contributing to its prosperity and growth;
WHEREAS the means for the increasing number of senior
residents of Labrador West to happily age in place are not currently available
in the region;
WHEREUPON we, the undersigned, your petitioners, call
upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to allow seniors in Labrador West to age in their community by providing
affordable housing options for seniors and assisted-living care facilities for
those requiring care.
Mr. Speaker, I have brought this (inaudible) and the
minister has responded a couple of times to it. I'm happy to hear that he's open
to the idea of looking at what seniors need in Labrador West. Like I've said
many times before, these people have built their entire lives in building a
community in Labrador West. It's a relatively new community. When you talk about
the age of Newfoundland and Labrador, it's one of the newest communities there.
It was never designed for seniors, but now seniors want to stay and watch their
grandchildren enjoy the community that they've built.
I ask the House to take a serious consideration at
looking at the needs and stuff of seniors in the area when it comes to adequate
housing and other options like that, and different levels of care that are
required in the area, so we can continue to grow and build as a community and
also watch our parents and grandparents continue to enjoy the community that
they've built.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Women and Gender Equality to respond to the
previous petition.
P.
PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I want to also commend my hon. colleague, of
course, for bringing this very important matter. As we all know, it certainly is
a priority and the Member is certainly accurate when he says that this certainly
is in the works.
Just to say again on record that an additional $425,000
in funding to advance the work of the Office of Women and Gender Equality and
the Premier's Roundtable on Gender Equity, as well as the expansion of the
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program. Again, to confirm to the Member this
certainly is a priority. I really appreciate that and I thank him for bringing
up this important matter, because we need to keep these conversations at the
forefront and that is exactly what our government will do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Motion 3.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that not withstanding
Standing Order 63 this House shall not proceed with Private Members' Day on
Wednesday, June 23, 2021, but shall instead meet at 2 p.m. on that day for
Routine Proceedings and to conduct government business, and that any private
Member's motion by the Official Opposition scheduled for that day shall be
deferred and shall be debated on the next occurring Private Members' Day.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 7.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, that An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009, Bill 7, now be read
a second time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act,
2009 do now be read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Vital Statistics Act, 2009.” (Bill 7)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has been a big week or two weeks for the Vital
Statistics Act; this is our second change. It is very exciting; very important
piece of legislation that protects some of the administration around residents
of our province.
Today, the changes we are proposing will do three
things. The first is introduce an important piece of consumer protection, which
I'll explain. We're going to make it easier to get documents processed when a
loved one has passed away. Thirdly, we are making an administrative change to
increase the responsiveness upon processing death registrations.
I'll just walk through that now, Mr. Speaker. The first
change around an important piece of consumer protection has to do with when one
applies for a birth, marriage or death certificate. I had a baby in October and
I had to do this. I went online and I googled birth certificate NL or apply for
a birth certificate Newfoundland and Labrador so that I could apply for a birth
certificate for my little boy.
When one googles that or looks online for that, whether
it's a birth certificate, marriage certificate or death certificate, our
government website comes up and there's an easy process to fill out your birth
certificate. It could be better, but we're working on it. What also comes up in
search results are third party sites, and through a third party you could apply
for a Newfoundland and Labrador birth certificate, among other certificates. Mr.
Speaker, there's nothing wrong with that at the moment. There's nothing illegal
about that, but that's certainly something that we're proposing to change in
this amendment today.
Currently, there are third parties who operate
websites. They're not located in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they allow
residents to put in the same information they provide the provincial government
and they can apply for a birth certificate, for example, through these websites.
You submit all the information you have to do to submit a birth certificate and
one might think that they are actually applying with the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador when they are not. Sure, if you could read the fine
print and the terms and conditions, it's very clear that they're not the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm involved in some of the baby
Facebook groups and a lot of the comments that I see there around people
applying for birth certificates for their children makes me believe that there
are many, many people applying for certificates through one of these third party
websites.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, we get 200 to 500, per year,
requests that come in from these third party websites. Again, there's nothing
illegal at the moment about this, Mr. Speaker. But some of the kind of negative
elements, I guess, is that residents often pay a lot more. It costs $30 to $35;
$30 if you do it online with us and $35 if you apply in person for a birth
certificate, for example. Where some of these websites are charging $60, $75 to
$100 for the same certificate. They're just collecting the information and
giving it to us. It's really using the fact that people google these things and
they can get a really high Google ranking. In a way they're kind of taking
advantage of residents, Mr. Speaker. Again, there's nothing illegal at the
moment, but that's what we're proposing to change.
For us to remedy this, Mr. Speaker, we are introducing
a revised definition of a designated agent, because right now these third
parties are acting as designated agents. The changes we're proposing: In order
to apply for a certificate on someone's behalf as a designated agent you will
need to know the person for one year and the registrar would also have
discretion around this. So if there was a unique situation, then the registrar
could handle it, or you would have to provide authorization in writing that
someone could apply for this on your behalf.
Essentially, these third party organizations who are
currently applying for certificates on people's behalf – in most cases, I would
imagine unbeknownst to the person applying – they will no longer be able to do
this practice. We've seen this across other provinces and other provinces have
had to enact similar legislation to protect their consumers.
The other element I'll add, Mr. Speaker, is the
protection of personal information. These are third party organizations, but the
information you have to submit to apply for a birth certificate, a death
certificate or a marriage certificate, this is quite a high level of sensitive
information. There are many residents of the province putting these into these
third party websites at the moment. Yes, they transmit it to us, but that's kind
of an extra, unnecessary layer. You're giving your information – your most
sensitive information – to an additional company that you don't need to give it
to them. You just give it to us and we'll take appropriate care of your personal
information. That's the first and very important change that we're proposing
today around consumer protection.
There are two other changes, Mr. Speaker. The first is
when someone applies for a marriage certificate and one party to the marriage
certificate cannot be reached or is incapacitated, it's difficult for a family
who's maybe doing some administrative things to reach a resolution around that.
We're proposing changes, Mr. Speaker, so that children, parents, siblings of
deceased can apply for a marriage certificate. We anticipate this is going to be
very helpful in some matters of estate resolution or when one party to a
marriage certificate cannot be located. We have all of our normal checks and
balances in place, but there is kind of a unique situation here that we're
trying to remedy.
Mr. Speaker, the third change we're proposing today is
an administrative issue around releasing death registrations. Currently, in
order for the registrar to release a death registration, written authorization
is required from myself, the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL. I
see a lot of these. I review the documentation and sign off, saying: I agree
that the registrar can release the death registration. This is kind of an
unnecessary burden, so we're going to change this process to make it more
appropriate so that they don't have to wait for my signature. We're going to
reduce the time required to process that change, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very pleased to introduce these changes today. As I
mentioned, for the first change particularly, it impacts – between 200 to 500
people every year are paying more than they need to and giving up more
information than they need to. We're very happy with these proposed changes and
look forward to debate and discussion in Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it's a privilege and an honour to represent the
District of Ferryland in this hon. House.
First of all, I'd like to start off by thanking the
minister and her staff for the briefing that we had on this legislation. It's
something that we'll be supporting and something that we'll certainly endorse.
I'll just go over a couple of things that the minister did go over, but there
are a couple of points I would touch on. Basically, there are three changes, as
she had said.
Currently, the current legislation does not prevent it.
There are online companies who offer to help you get a copy of your own vital
statistic documents, like a birth certificate. These companies charge well above
the government fees. For example, a company will charge $100 for a birth
certificate, which is actually only $30 on the government website. These
companies do not deliver the documents any faster than the Government of NL
website, and in the process, they're getting access to personal information.
This is happening because they ask the customer to give them written consent
through an online form.
To fix this to protect consumers, this legislation is
narrowing who can ask for a birth certificate, a marriage certificate or a death
certificate on behalf of someone else. People who can obtain documents on
someone else's behalf will be called designated agents – is what they're saying.
A designated agent will be a person who is 19 years of age or older and is
designated by the individual and, one of, has known the person for at least a
year; is a lawyer representing that person; or is working for an aid giving
non-profit.
That was the first one. The second piece of
legislation: There is no restriction who can apply for a copy of a marriage
licence when one of the parties to the marriage is deceased. This causes trouble
when one of the parties is deceased and their family cannot track down the other
party to the marriage. Think about marriages that were dissolved or divorces
many years ago.
To fix this, this legislation allows a child, a parent
or an executor of a deceased party to obtain the marriage certificate. This will
also assist in situations where one party has deceased and the other party is
elderly, ill or will be troubled for applying for a marriage certificate. This
legislation can and will put the province in line with most other Canadian
provinces.
The third change again is just something that when they
apply for – really, it's government red tape right now. Currently, the registrar
of Vital Statistics has to get written authorization from the minister to
release a death certificate. So, I'm going to say, they're taking the minister
out of the equation and putting it on to someone in the office who can help, I'm
going to say, make it happen a little quicker, rather than have to wait for the
minister to sign off.
I think they're three good pieces of legislation and I
do have a few questions when we get to Committee.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Any
other speakers?
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
J.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's great to see that we're getting in line with our
Canadian cousins again with a few of these, especially in Digital Government and
Service NL. It seems every now and then, every sitting, we get a bill on the
tweaks here and tweaks there. I'm glad to see that.
It's good, especially when it comes to a lot of the
stuff like a lot of these sites, like the minister referenced and talked about
her parental groups that they talked about. There are a lot of predatory sites
on the Internet, especially when it comes to your personal information. They'll
use every trick in the book to try and get your personal information because
they want to sell you something or scam you in some shape or form. I am glad to
see that we are taking action on a lot of those stuff and it is good.
At the same time, we are also amending it to make it
easier for parents and spouses and people who have elderly parents and things
like that to actually gain access to documentation, especially when you have
family members who are deceased and you are trying to situate their estate or
you're trying to situate their final stuff like that. It is good that we are
bringing ourselves in line but, at the same time, also keeping the predators
away at the door that are trying to get our personal information.
I know the Department of Digital Government and Service
NL, they are the keepers of everyone in this room's personal information. They
have a very daunting task and a very important task to keep that protected on
our behalf. I am glad to see that we are going to get these predatory sites away
from us.
We look at disclosing death certificates from 50 years
ago. A growing thing in this province is people are trying to collect
information from their deceased parents and things like that and trying to
gather all that together and make sure we have people who execute final wills
and testaments, and they need this information to gather all this stuff. We're
going to make it a little bit easier for people, but we're also moving towards
the digital world as well.
You also have the same thing. The Member for Ferryland
did mention marriages that have dissolved years ago and people are trying to
clue up final things from their parents and things like that. I'm glad to see
this and I'm glad to see we're doing more housekeeping in this department. As
someone always says it is Digital Government and Service NL, the department of
everything else. We always have one of these here and I am glad to see this and
I look forward to the Member's closing remarks.
Thank you.
SPEAKER:
Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL
speaks now she will close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service
NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to thank the MHA for Ferryland and the MHA
for Labrador West for your comments and I thank everyone and I look forward to
hopefully unanimous approval of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 7 now be read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried
CLERK (Barnes):
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009. (Bill 7)
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole?
S.
CROCKER:
Presently.
SPEAKER:
Presently.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Vital
Statistics Act, 2009,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of
the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 7)
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 11.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm certainly pleased to be here today to introduce
some amendments to a very important piece of legislation, the
Children, Youth and Families Act. The
act was proclaimed in June 2019, and since that time, it has been determined
that some areas could be strengthened to benefit the people that it serves.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We need a mover and seconder to the motion.
J.
ABBOTT:
Oh,
sorry.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development for mover and
seconder.
J.
ABBOTT:
I
move the discussion of the bill. I need a seconder and it will be the Minister
of Environment and Climate Change.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
It
is moved that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Children, Youth and Families Act, be
now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Children, Youth and Families Act.” (Bill 11)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr.
Speaker, I won't roll back and I do apologize.
In preparing these amendments, we've consulted with key
stakeholders, particularly the Indigenous governments and organizations, the
Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner, the Child Death Review Committee, the Newfoundland and Labrador
College of Social Workers and the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families
Association, all of whom are supportive of the proposed changes. I'll briefly
walk through these here now.
The first amendment concerns the definition of “foster
parent.” This amendment is necessary given the enactment of the new federal Act
respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. The
federal legislation was proclaimed in January 2020 and includes many provisions
related to the well-being of Indigenous children and youth. For example, federal
legislation grants party status in child protection court hearings to care
providers as a way to ensure that Indigenous families and community members can
fully participate in court matters related to an Indigenous child or youth in
their care.
We're certainly supportive of the federal legislation;
however, the definition of “care provider” in the federal legislation is very
similar to our own. As a result, it could be interpreted that foster parents
have equal standing with the child's parent in court matters. Since this is not
the intention of the federal legislation, amending the definition of “foster
parent” in the Children, Youth and
Families Act will help distinguish this role from the “care provider”
definition in the federal legislation. This has been discussed with our key
stakeholder, the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, and they
are supportive of this change.
Our department right now has 12 managers throughout the
province with decision-making responsibility for children and youth, and this
concerns the second set of amendments. The amendments here clarify that any
manager will be able to assume the responsibilities of another manager, when
required, for operational reasons. This could include managers taking leave, on
call or when a child or family moves to another location temporarily. This
change confirms in the legislation the practice currently in place within the
department.
There are also times when it becomes necessary to
formally transfer custody from one manager to another; for example, when the
child or family moves permanently to another location in the province. Allowing
transfers of custody between managers by filing notices with the court, instead
of requiring an amended order by the court, will allow this action to be taken
through an administrative approach, rather than a court proceeding. These
amendments will reduce administrative requirements for the department, alleviate
unnecessary pressures on court time and ultimately, and most importantly,
support more timely decisions for children in care.
The next set of amendments deal with Indigenous
representatives. The act now explicitly recognizes the importance of preserving
Indigenous cultural identity, especially for children in care, and helps to
maintain connections to their culture and community. These amendments further
acknowledge that the best interests of Indigenous children and youth are best
addressed through involvement of their Indigenous community in decisions
relating to their care and protection.
One of the ways our act does this is by requiring us to
notify Indigenous governments and organizations when there is a court hearing
related to the custody or supervision of a child or youth from their community.
We do this through Indigenous representatives who are designated by their
Indigenous government or organization. This ensures their representatives are
aware of matters affecting Indigenous children and youth so they can participate
in case planning and allows them to act on their right to apply to be heard in
court on these important matters.
While the involvement of Indigenous representatives is
critically important, we are also aware that the operational demands for
Indigenous representatives can be significant; therefore, they have asked if
more than one representative can be appointed to provide additional support. We
are certainly supportive of this approach. They're recommending change to the
language in the act to allow for more than one Indigenous representative to be
appointed.
The next amendment will support the least intrusive
approach for children requiring protection. In most cases, families with
children in need of protection willingly accept services from the department to
ensure the best interests of their children are met. However, there are also
times when matters related to child protection must be dealt with through the
court system.
For example, there are times when the department may
have concerns for the well-being of a child and these concerns could be resolved
by providing supports and services to the family; however, the family at times
may not accept these services. In these cases, the social worker would like to
make an application to the court seeking an interim order that requires the
family to participate in the services that are being recommended by the
department while the case is making its way through the court system.
This will be an important option for the court, as it
may reduce the need to take more intrusive court action, including removing the
child from the home if their safety cannot be maintained. There is currently no
judicial authority in the legislation which allows the judge to issue an interim
order prior to the conclusion of the hearing. Allowing judges to issue an
interim order in these situations may keep children safe in their family homes
by requiring supports or services in the home while the matter is being heard in
court.
We are also proposing an amendment to the manner in
which Indigenous representatives are served with notices of court matters
related to children and youth from their communities. Currently, these notices
must be served to them in person; however, this sometimes presents logistical
challenges that Indigenous governments and organizations have asked us to
address. The change that is being proposed will allow for more flexibility so
that in addition to the current methods of service, we will also be able to
serve notice via secure email or by leaving a paper copy of the notice in a
sealed envelope at their office. We agree that this approach will make serving
notices more efficient for all involved.
Another change we're proposing is to support Indigenous
governments and organizations in the Schedules to the legislation that list the
Indigenous governments and organizations who may appoint Indigenous
representatives to receive notification of court hearings and participate in
case planning related to Indigenous children and youth.
When the
Children, Youth and Families Act was proclaimed in 2019, the Schedule
included those organizations with whom the department had a formalized working
relationship. At that time, they included the Miawpukek First Nation, Mushuau
Innu First Nation, Nunatsiavut Government and Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation. The
NunatuKavut Community Council has asked to be added to the Schedule. We are
pleased to do so and the Schedule has been amended effective May 12, 2021. We
continue our relationship with the Qalipu First Nation, and they are aware that
they can also be added to the Schedule should they choose so in the future.
Some of the amendments we are proposing here today
pertain to the processes that our social workers and their managers follow in
the day-to-day execution of their duties. This relates to sharing of
information. Currently, the Children,
Youth and Families Act requires
the department to establish an information sharing agreement with the Office of
Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Child
Death Review for the purpose of disclosing information to those offices.
However, these entities have statutory authority to receive the information and
are governed by the Access to Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 – ATIPPA.
We are proposing amendments that will confirm the
ability of departmental staff to continue to share information with these
entities, such as the Child and Youth Advocate, the chief medical examiner and
the Child Death Review without needing to establish an information sharing
agreement. These changes will not result in any change in the manner in which
CSSD, my department, shares information with these bodies as they are already
covered by the ATIPPA legislation.
We are also proposing an amendment that will allow for
similar information sharing between my department and the Newfoundland and
Labrador College of Social Workers for the purposes of an investigation or
hearing under the Social Workers Act.
In this case, however, an information sharing agreement may be required as the
college is not governed by ATIPPA, and the department is required to ensure that
every precaution is taken to protect the privacy of the individuals we serve. We
are confident that the amendments being presented today will continue to support
the child and youth-centred, family-focused and culturally responsive direction
of the Children, Youth and Families Act.
This concludes the overview of the amendments that are
being proposed in the bill. I trust you will agree that these changes will help
us strengthen the act that governs the safety, protection and well-being of
vulnerable children and youth in our province, while responding to the needs of
our Indigenous and community partners.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for bringing these important
amendments to the House of Assembly. It gives me great honour to be in this
House and represent the people of Placentia West - Bellevue. It is my honour to
represent those people.
On behalf of those people that I represent, I would
like to acknowledge yesterday as National Indigenous Peoples Day. It is a very
important day to acknowledge. One of the big initiatives for Indigenous peoples
is that Every Child Matters.
This bill does impact Indigenous children in foster
care. These amendments are really administrative, I think, in their meaning, but
they also streamline a little bit more of the services to help protect the
children. I really do believe that with the presentation today of tabling the
new document about turning over the social services to the Nunatsiavut
Government, I think it's very important they have that autonomy to know what's
best for the children in care and to keep them in their ancestral and native
communities, to not lose any of their heritage or anything like that, but most
of all – and I stress it most of all – it's to protect the children.
Like I said, that's something that we all take
seriously. Both the minister and I have had lengthy discussions, not only in
Estimates, but in a private meeting at his office with his EA and my assistant.
We really had a fulsome discussion on how we can make this system better. Some
of these amendments will certainly reach out to that.
There's nothing really here to pick apart or anything
like that, because like I said, it's about protecting the children. Each one of
these amendments does put extra protections in place for the children,
especially to give the judge an opportunity, if he or she deems fit that a child
needs to be removed until the hearing is completed, then that's something that
is going to protect the child. We here in the Official Opposition do certainly
agree with that.
We agree with these amendments and we'll be supporting
these amendments, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to asking the minister some
questions once we get to Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, we'll be supporting these amendments as
well. Mainly, as my colleague from Placentia West - Bellevue has said, it's
about the protection of the children.
As you look through the changes, in many cases it's
about streamlining the process. We know when we hear the term “streamlining” it
can mean many things, but here it's about cutting down on the time to do things,
to take actions and to move a case along. In that situation, protection of
children, Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence.
We can see here that this law has been in place for two
years, as noted, and there have been consultations with the various stakeholders
as to where the act might be tightened up or relaxed. That's a significant
indication of the attempt by government to make sure this is successful.
We have heard that Indigenous governments and
organizations can appoint more than one representative. It allows governments
and organizations to deal with cases more flexibly. We can see that the
NunatuKavut Community Council is added as an Indigenous government or
organization covered by the act.
We can see here that amendments will also allow a judge
to issue an interim order prior to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, of a protective
intervention hearing. Considering a preliminary hearing can take up to 10 days
and the final hearing up to another 30 days, this allows for a much more
expedited intervention.
The legislation also allows for a zone manager to
assume the responsibilities for another zone manager. Again, this allows for
more rapid intervention in cases. It allows zone managers to transfer custody or
supervision of a child to another zone manager without having to file an amended
order to the court in most cases; two to three days that would take to do that.
When you're dealing with the health and well-being of a child, time matters.
One amendment, section 94, removes the requirement of
an information sharing agreement with the Office of the Child and Youth
Advocate, chief medical officer and the Child Death Review Committee, as they're
governed by ATIPP; certainly here, the ability of the authority to share
information with the College of Social Workers for the purpose of an
intervention. So privacy is protected but the well-being of children is looked
after as well. The legislation is a product of ongoing discussions. It reduces
red tape. In this case, it literally cuts down on the amount of time and it's
primarily concerned with the well-being of children.
I will say this: As a former teacher, I can tell you
that a lot of the times what we deal with is just the time to get things done,
the paperwork and the information sharing. I certainly would like to also see
that information – and not just looking at the College of Social Workers, but
also school councillors and maybe even school administrators.
As a teacher, I don't always need to be brought in to
the intimate details of a situation, but I do believe that in many cases a lot
of the children who are in care are also students in the school system. It's
good to streamline the process within the school system so that school
councillors – those who are in that exceptional role of care and privacy – are
brought into the fold.
I can tell you from talking to school councillors that
is not always the case. So if there's a way of proposing – if I can make one
suggestion, it would be to make sure that the school system is brought into this
quickly. Keep in mind it's often teachers who will see the first signs of
trouble or concern and will bring it to government or to the department. After
that, they are left out of loop as to what steps are being taken.
With that in mind, certainly, we'll support this bill.
It's good work. It sets a good model for the future when we deal with any
legislation, but, certainly, when it comes to the protection of children, Mr.
Speaker, that kind of outreach, that kind of collaboration, consultation is
absolutely essential in cutting down on the amount of time so that children are
in a protected space and that their health, well-being, mental health and
physical health, are foremost and utmost in the minds of everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
P.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I don't want to speak too long, other than I do want to
speak to this very important bill and the changes herein. I have to say that
within my constituency office – and I would suspect most of us can feel the
importance of some of the changes that we see here. I'm not going to go into the
specifics of the bill, but in terms of its justification, I have to thank,
again, as I did during Estimates, the staff that we get an opportunity to work
with. I could say that we have literally saved lives from the support that we've
needed at very critical times.
As I look down through these points, there have been
several emotional situations where I've seen senior staff frustrated because
they haven't been able to move forward in the best interest of the child and,
frankly, of the family. I do feel that these changes are reflecting what I have
heard, at least, from my non-technical but very integral interaction that we
find ourselves in as politicians representing a district and then working with
people struggling with this act and changes that need to be made, all for the
best interests of the child and the family.
I can't say anything else other than I'm just looking
forward to its passage. Sometimes when we make changes here as legislators in
this House of Assembly, years from now other MHAs probably, and their offices,
may not even feel the significance of some of these changes. Things will move
smoothly in a logical way; the rationale for why they were changed may never
become apparent. But I can tell you, for this guy and I would suspect most of my
colleagues, we get it loud and clear and I look forward to supporting this bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
If
the minister speaks now he will close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank my colleagues for their comments.
I think it's fair to say that based on those comments
there is certainly, I believe, support for the justification for the amendments
and understanding why those amendments are required at this time, after two
years of operating under the current legislation, which has been quite
successful. We are working closely with Indigenous representatives and
governments and organizations on the ground.
I think the Member for Lake Melville certainly spoke to
the recognition that the issues we're dealing with here are coming about as
we've been operationalizing the act. That's really what the intent is here, to
streamline the administrative processes, streamline our interaction with the
courts – only be in court when we need to.
The Member for St. John's Centre talked about time is
of the essence, and when we're dealing with children and their families that is
certainly a critical factor. So where we can streamline our regulatory and
professional social work practices to support that, we will. That again is the
intent of the act.
The fact that we have broad support by the Indigenous
governments and their organizations as well as other parties speaks to the
goodwill that we're experiencing when we're operationalizing the current piece
of legislation. Not to say that more changes won't be in store.
I heard the Member for St. John's Centre in terms of
his comments around engaging with teachers, principals and school counsellors.
That's something we are doing but need to do more.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude and thank my
colleagues for their support of the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 11 now be read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Children, Youth And Families Act. (Bill 11)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole?
S.
CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Children, Youth
And Families Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 11)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,
that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills
11 and 7.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bills.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 7, An Act To Amend The
Vital Statistics Act, 2009.
A bill, “An Act To
Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009.” (Bill 7)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have three or four questions, pretty quick
questions.
The changes in the legislation designed to protect
individuals' Vital Statistics documents and by extension their privacy while
allowing the appropriate people to have access.
Has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on these
changes?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
As part of the normal process, the Privacy Commissioner
does provide feedback on all bills such as this one. I would anticipate that yes
– yes, my team have confirmed that, yes, the Privacy Commissioner has verified
that these changes are appropriate.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thanks, again, Mr. Chair.
One of the changes deals with the death notifications.
Has the Public Trustee who deals with the estates been consulted?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure if the Public Trustee – if consulting them
is normally part of the process. I'd be happy to respond to that in a second,
when my team gets a chance to let me know.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you.
In this legislation we are giving non-profits the
ability to request Vital Statistics documents on a person's behalf.
Are there any lists of the non-profits who are
considered aid-giving, available?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the previous question, in terms of the Public
Trustee, it is not normally part of the process to consult on someone like the
Public Trustee in advance of a bill coming to the House. Unlike the Privacy
Commissioner, who is built into the process, the Public Trustee is not normally
a stakeholder, so, no, we haven't consulted with them at the moment.
Then in terms of the – I'm sorry, what was the second
part?
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
The
last one is for the non-profits who are considered aid-giving, is the list
available?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of the non-profits that could assist, there
would be some within the community that could work with the registrar, for
example. I'd have to get a definitive list for the Member; I can certainly
provide that.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Any
further questions?
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
L.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, this is the last one I have.
Will these aid-giving non-profits have to implement any
procedures to protect an individual's privacy or has an assessment already been
conducted on their privacy practices?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
S.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we would engage – a resident would engage with
a non-profit and the registrar on a case-by-case basis, and that process could
look different and unique depending on the unique circumstances of an
individual. The registrar, working with an organization, would ensure that all
the proper documentation was in place and also that no unnecessary documentation
was followed.
There would be some due diligence in working with them
to collect the appropriate information, but no specific processes that would be
– my team has mentioned that the consent of the applicant, obviously, would be
very important in that as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any further questions?
The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple questions on Bill 11. I know that we're
doing them concurrently.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We'll go through Bill 11 as soon as we get Bill 7 done.
It's going to be part of the same process, but I just want to get Bill 7 looked
after first.
J.
DWYER:
I
understand, Sir.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 6 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 6 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, long title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 11, An Act To Amend The
Children, Youth And Families Act.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Children, Youth And
Families Act.” (Bill 11)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the minister: Did discussions take place with
councils and groups within the Indigenous community?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr.
Chair, we consulted with the representatives of all Indigenous groups and
governments in the province in the preparation of the amendments.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Did
they concur with the amendments?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr.
Chair, the answer is yes on all fronts.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Will the Indigenous governments appoint the representatives?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Yes, that would be the case. It would be for each government or organization to
identify their representatives under this legislation.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
J.
DWYER:
Last question, Mr. Chair.
How long do you anticipate the transfer of
responsibilities to the Nunatsiavut Government?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Though not covered by this particular bill, as announced by the Nunatsiavut
Government themselves, the minister last week, they're anticipating a three-year
development of a plan. We'll be working with them to meet their goal.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Any
further questions to the clause?
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
J.
DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a quick question with regard to schools and that
and the education system along the lines of what I brought up.
When it comes to information sharing and that – and I'm
not necessarily looking at schools having standing, but it's about where do they
fit in? Where does the education system fit in? Specifically school counsellors
and that like?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
J.
ABBOTT:
Mr.
Chair, again, this bill is not going to address the Member's question. In terms
of practice, if there is a child in a school needing involvement of our social
workers, then we would, on a case-by-case basis, work with the school
counsellors, any social workers involved or any other professional in the school
system. But that would be on a case-by-case basis.
In this legislation, the amendments are really to cover
existing legislative offices that already are covered by ATIPPA. It's within the
course of their official duties that we would be exchanging information, and
because they're covered by the ATIPPA legislation, we feel – and certainly
supported by our legal counsel and proposed in amendments – that, in fact, we do
not need specific provisions for them to receive that information.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 13 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 13 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 2 through 13 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Children, Youth And Families Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the long title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, long title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 7 and
11.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 7 and 11.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the
motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
SPEAKER (Bennett):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, Chair
of Committees.
B.
WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bills 7 and 11 without amendment.
SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 7
and 11 without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
S.
CROCKER:
Now.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bills be read a third time?
S.
CROCKER:
Tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of
Bill 15.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill
15, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be read a third time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 15)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass
and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act,
2000 No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 15)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call Order 3, third reading of Bill 19.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,
that Bill 19, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 No. 2, be now read
a third time.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, 2009 No. 2. (Bill 19)
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass
and its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Vital
Statistics Act, 2009 No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be
as on the Order Paper. (Bill 19)
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
S.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader,
that this House do now adjourn.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Before we adjourn, I'd just like to remind everyone
that tomorrow this Legislature will be participating in the Moose Hide Campaign
and we ask all Members to be present in their seats for a 9:15 start.
This House does now stand adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.